17-35 or 16-35?

[Deadeye008]

2.8 is useful if you are shooting moving subjects in low light but if you are using a tripod and shooting basically static objects(stars) the 4.0 should be fine. I shoot startrails all the time with my Tokina 10-17m f3.5-4.5 and I just use a little longer shutter speed than when shooting at 2.8. I do love my set of 28mm 50mm and 85mm 1.8 primes though but mostly for their boque when shot @ 1.8-2.2

 

[Nick]

I dunno. The f/2.8 is pretty important for stars. Anything longer than 30 seconds typically means blurred stars. So the more light you can get in 30 seconds at a lower ISO is way better.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

What filters are you using?
Everything 82mm cost some serious $$$$

I've got a Hoya CP and ND....I believe the CP was around $150-200ish and the ND was much cheaper

 

[Deadeye008]

4.0, 30 sec @ ISO 1600 is what I usually shoot at. I've never had to shoot over a 30 sec exposure with my Tokina. If it were me I'd get the 17-40 and the sigma 20mm 1.8 instead of the 16-35.

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Bill]

so... yeah.
Not getting the 16-35

 

[NateGeesaman]

I enjoyed reading all the different thoughts around these lenses.

 

[Bill]

Oh yeah.
I ended up getting a 5d, 24-105 f4, and a sigma 20 f1.8

 

[IntrepidXJ]

The 24-105 is probably my most-used lens. It's a nice walk around lens.

 

[Deadeye008]

Oh yeah.
I ended up getting a 5d, 24-105 f4, and a sigma 20 f1.8

You will love the images from the 5D and the low light performance. It is a !@#$% to lug around though which is why I usually end up taking my T2i on backpacking trips. I'll take the 5D if it's an easy day hike or something. The T2i feels like a toy after holding the 5D...